3 edits
@no1marauder saidAgain, New York gun laws (along with many other measures) helped dropped the rate of gun violence and gun homicides.
Those are "firearm mortality" rates which, again, include suicides.
If you check out homicide mortality rates (there's a link to them in your article), sure poor southern "red" States like Mississippi and Alabama are very high but States with few gun restrictions like Idaho and North Dakota are, too. So finding a direct link between gun laws and fewer gun murders seem ...[text shortened]... nally barred from doing so, but that is the "logic" that Justice Thomas and the court have adopted).
Still, you are correct that drawing direct links to gun laws and crimes committed with them is "problematic" since crime fighting efforts don't hinge only on gun laws. Stopping organized crime would drop gun homicide rates, with or without gun laws.
But tight gun restrictions are still an integral part of the crime fighting picture that will only help in the long run. And not with just murder; assaults with guns where the victim lived but was injured, or crimes committed where the threat of gun violence was used to force victims to comply, like rape, abductions, robberies, etc.
Regarding SCOTUS, sweeping gun control bills have been passed by Congress even with this Supreme Court. State-level changes can still be made. SCOTUS overturned cancelled-carry laws in New York but legislators acted quickly to replace them with equivalent laws.
The main point is the tighter gun laws only help. They never hurt.
@vivify saidQuite obviously, fewer guns would mean less gun deaths. But I'm skeptical any proposed measures would meaningfully achieve that result in a country already awash in all kinds of firearms.
Again, New York gun laws (along with many other measures) helped dropped the rate of gun violence and gun homicides.
Still, you are correct that drawing direct links to gun laws and crimes committed with them is "problematic" since crime fighting efforts don't hinge only on gun laws. Stopping organized crime would drop gun homicide rates, with or without gun laws.
B ...[text shortened]... them with equivalent laws.
The main point is the tighter gun laws only help. They never hurt.
I think you are underestimating the effects of the SCOTUS decision in Bruen and the reasoning adopted in it. For example, it seems California's ban on high capacity magazines is likely to fall since no such bans existed 200+ years ago (never mind no such magazines did either). This is likely to be the fate of any regulation of "assault rifles".
1 edit
@no1marauder said"The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, popularly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB or FAWB), was subtitle A of title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as large capacity.
Quite obviously, fewer guns would mean less gun deaths. But I'm skeptical any proposed measures would meaningfully achieve that result in a country already awash in all kinds of firearms.
I think you are underestimating the effects of the SCOTUS decision in Bruen and the reasoning adopted in it. For example, it seems California's ban on high capacity magazines i ...[text shortened]... no such magazines did either). This is likely to be the fate of any regulation of "assault rifles".
"The 10-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on August 25, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004, following its sunset provision. Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of the ban, but all were rejected by the courts. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none have succeeded." -- Wikipedia, Federal Assault Weapons Ban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
(I agree with you, though, that now, in the current makeup of Congress, it may be nigh-on impossible to get enough votes for any Assault Weapons Ban. Maybe this year's election might de-pressurize this. Of course, this rogue Supreme Court may also decide to continue to forego precedent in order to further the far-right agenda.)
@sonhouse saidOne of the main functions for the Supreme Court is to consider the constitutionality of even amendments.
@Suzianne
Even if an assault weapon ban law was passed, it would not be a constitutional amendment and as such the next right wing POTUS or SCOTUS could reverse it.
Only a constitutional amendment would keep gun deaths down.
They could easily strike it down. They do not have to provide reasons for their partisan decisions.